This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

There's a reason there's a law against "hate crimes." It isn't based on anecdotal evidence. You are placing too much importance on one incident and extrapolating it to mean something it doesn't. What happened in one case doesn't really matter much, when hate crimes exist. If you believe the book, which may not be true, after all.

So, the KKK didn't kill black people...skinheads don't kill hispanics.....men don't rape and beat up women regularly.....all these things are just anecdotes, in your opinion. Okay, well, head in sand is an appropriate description of you. I think you have something against gay people, minorities, women, and other people who have been the victims of others because of what they are. Why else would you want to take such a hard stance that an obvious truth doesn't exist? Did you believe George Bush's tale that the sky was green, too? (Iraq WMDs)

You left out a lot of different types of victims in your post. Perhaps a refresher at the Thought Police Institute is in order for you.

"“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama

Either way, gay people ARE killed and beaten up for being gay, aren't they? I mean, years ago while riding around at night with guy friends (I was very young...you know how you hang out...and my boyfriend was there)...anyway, there were times where the guys (not my boyfriend) would joke about how they went gay bashing or were going to go gay bashing. They were talking about hunting down gays and beating them up. It's considered sport by some young men.

Skinheads and such like to ride around and hunt for minorities to beat up or kill.

This is not an uncommon thing. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it. There was even a video recently of a guy in drag in Russian getting beaten up by non-gay males.

But I don't know much about the Shepherd case, really. Don't know why there would be a gag order for a criminal case.

I'm surprised you don't know much about the Shepherd case [bolding mine]:

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, is an American Act of Congress, passed on October 22, 2009,[1] and signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 28, 2009,[2] as a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647). Conceived as a response to the murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., the measure expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think that gays being beaten up has ever been a commonplace, but I do remember Paul Broussard, who was murdered by a bunch of high school boys who wanted to "beat up some queers" in 1991. It's 2013. At least in my community, "fag-bashing" doesn't go on, and I don't imagine that it does in most cities. The gay people I love and work with too are ordinary people like me who are settled and successful, and their orientation isn't even an issue, only an "is" among many other far more interesting and important facets of who they are.

In the larger view, no it doesn't matter. Homosexuals don't face violence because of what happened to one young man. And they still face even if the wasn't quite correct. So, not, to that issue it doesn't really matter.

That is merely the subject-change you wish to be "the point." We've already been over this.

“Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

That is merely the subject-change you wish to be "the point." We've already been over this.

No, it relates directly to the discussion.

1) there is not enough evidence to verify this story.

2) even if true, it has no bearing on the larger issue.

Now, you can form a rebuttal if you want or are capable, but both comments are on point.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Now, you can form a rebuttal if you want or are capable, but both comments are on point.

I already told you why it has a bearing on this thread, if it's true. You never "rebutted" that. The "larger issue" isn't the issue of the thread. That's simply what you're trying to expand it to. The issue of the thread is the media handling of the specific case, nothing "larger" than that.

“Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

I already told you why it has a bearing on this thread, if it's true. You never "rebutted" that. The "larger issue" isn't the issue of the thread. That's simply what you're trying to expand it to. The issue of the thread is the media handling of the specific case, nothing "larger" than that.

Yes I know, poor conservatives picked on by the big bad media. Again, that holds no significants. You have to show they knew what they were reporting wasn't valid or accurate.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Yes I know, poor conservatives picked on by the big bad media. Again, that holds no significants. You have to show they knew what they were reporting wasn't valid or accurate.

Now you're changing the subject.

Look, your "larger issue" is what you want to argue about, not what the thread is about. And the truth of what happened to Matthew Shepard is entirely relevant to what the thread is about, despite what you say. It's your "larger issue" which is irrelevant to the thread.

“Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

Look, your "larger issue" is what you want to argue about, not what the thread is about. And the truth of what happened to Matthew Shepard is entirely relevant to what the thread is about, despite what you say. It's your "larger issue" which is irrelevant to the thread.

I'm all for the truth. So, provide some. But I repeat:

1) there is not enough evidence to verify this story.

2) even if true, it has no bearing on the larger issue.

They speak directly to the OP and the comments that followed.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Yes, you repeat, which is your primary mode of "argument" -- the Boo Radley Merry-Go-Round.

You can say it three thousand times, and you gladly would, but it won't make you right or your "larger issue" relevant to the thread. If all you're going to do is repeat, which is the norm with you, then there's nothing else to say.

“Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn